Runners Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Intuitively it would seem that running requires more energy than walking but people keep telling me ( and I am sure that I read it somewhere too) that there is no difference.
i.e walking 10 miles is the same as running 10 miles. Clearly it would take much longer to walk hence you burn up the calories more slowly.
Is this true?:huh:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
I'm sure I read the same somewhere, however, how many calories you burn depends on a variety of factors such as fitness level, metabolism, individual weight and how hard the workout is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,223 Posts
And then you'll have abs like Granty :d
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,089 Posts
In a basic argument you could say that you're covering the same distance and carrying the same weight regardless of your speed, so the energy required should be the same. (Obviously this would vary from person to person though, due to weight, metabolism, fitness etc).

However i'd be more inclined to follow the theory that Work Done = Force x Distance. So covering the same distance in a shorter time would require greater levels of force (i.e. 'propulsion' from you legs), which would in turn mean a greater amount of work done (and therefore greater calorie expenditure).

Additionally, higher intensity workouts raise more metabolism more than lower intensity workouts, and the effects of this (I believe) can last for a few hours after the excercise.

I may be well off the mark as these are just my interpretations of what i've picked up from reading bits and bobs. Food for thought though surely? ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
richardsimkiss said:
In a basic argument you could say that you're covering the same distance and carrying the same weight regardless of your speed, so the energy required should be the same. (Obviously this would vary from person to person though, due to weight, metabolism, fitness etc).

However i'd be more inclined to follow the theory that Work Done = Force x Distance. So covering the same distance in a shorter time would require greater levels of force (i.e. 'propulsion' from you legs), which would in turn mean a greater amount of work done (and therefore greater calorie expenditure).

Additionally, higher intensity workouts raise more metabolism more than lower intensity workouts, and the effects of this (I believe) can last for a few hours after the excercise.

I may be well off the mark as these are just my interpretations of what i've picked up from reading bits and bobs. Food for thought though surely? ;)
Well that is how I would see it too.
I know that my garmin records the same calorific burn regardless of the pace. So the people that programmed it assume that pace makes no difference.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,493 Posts
Fulmar said:
And then you'll have abs like Granty

I'm so looking forward to seeing Granty's abs for real later today ;)
I can hardly contain my excitement :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,495 Posts
Trinity said:
I'm so looking forward to seeing Granty's abs for real later today ;)
I can hardly contain my excitement :rolleyes:
Get down to the gym a bit sharpish if I were you Granty.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
Trinity said:
I'm so looking forward to seeing Granty's abs for real later today ;)
I can hardly contain my excitement :rolleyes:
*ahem* I will be wearing a large sized biking jacket so the picture might get distorted slightly. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
Dave said:
Get down to the gym a bit sharpish if I were you Granty.
Too late for that !!, thought about it earlier and decided to have a pasty for lunch instead .......... it was lush. :d

The picture's not far off the truth !! ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,495 Posts
Granty said:
Too late for that !!, thought about it earlier and decided to have a pasty for lunch instead
Good decision.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,493 Posts
Granty said:
*ahem* I will be wearing a large sized biking jacket so the picture might get distorted slightly. ;)

oh you're too modest Granty!


I don't mind holding your 'large sized biking jacket' while you compare toned abs wiv Rich :rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,281 Posts
I always assumed it was like petrol in a car, as in, if you toodle along slowly you burn through less calories / fuel than if you go all-out
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
20,654 Posts
Katten said:
I always assumed it was like petrol in a car, as in, if you toodle along slowly you burn through less calories / fuel than if you go all-out
That's the way I see it too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,493 Posts
nice to see you this evenin Granty


Bit disappointed that you kept those abs under wraps though :confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,437 Posts
Likewise!! too many security cameras around, next time ................

Funky glasses. (tell Rich I've been for a short trot and am currently uploading :d
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,223 Posts
Katten said:
I always assumed it was like petrol in a car, as in, if you toodle along slowly you burn through less calories / fuel than if you go all-out
Same here... Even though "too slow running" (much slower than your optimal "easy pace") can be very energy-consuming as well as you are not moving along at a natural speed for your body.
A friend a was training with yesterday had problems during our long run and we had to slow down a lot. My knees were in pain after a couple of miles. Eventually he had to stop and told me to go on on my own and wait at the end.
I did, running faster and the pain went away!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
98 Posts
travelling a distance burns the same calories in a person irrespective of your speed.

eg. if *I* travel 10k in 45minutes, or walk it in 90, same calories.

At the lower speed a higher % of the energy is sourced as fat, and at the higher speed a higher % is glycogen.

Now, what "they" will have you believe, is that if you want to lose fat, you must go slow/steady. This is nonsense I'm afraid.

Since at 8mph you are burning double the energy per minute you are over 4mph it's irrelevant that the % fat is smaller, the *ACTUAL* fat volume is great, albeit a smaller % of the total. So for example 90% of 100calories as fat is smaller than 50% of 200calories at 8mph.

If you go out and maximise your hour training by travelling fast, then you burn more calories, and fat. However, if you then cannot train the next day even gently, then you can see how your weekly burn can be affected by time-on-feet. 10mph is all well and good, but not if you need 3 days to recover from it.

I've got *loads* more detail than that if anyone is really interested, but that's the gist.

Travel at your highest speed you can, but maintain the ability to train tomorrow or you may as well go a little slower (this is for weight loss).

Oh, and remember - when you run HARD, the affect of the exercise lingers in the body later as it repairs you once you have stopped, so the calorific burn continues deep into your rest period, and furthermore, regular hard exercise increases the metabolic rate by an everage of 7%, so just sitting at your desk the day after hard exercise means you are burning around 107% of what you would had you not exercised. This effect wears off after around 3 days.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top